Yet another report states that Apple's third-generation iPad will offer high-speed 4G LTE connectivity, as the company looks to offer high quality video to users on the go.

Citing a source familiar with Apple's next iPad, Reuters was the latest to report on Tuesday that the third-generation tablet will be capable of operating on 4G long-term evolution networks from carriers AT&amp;T and Verizon. The 4G-capable iPad will offer speeds up to 10 times faster than the current 3G models.

The report by authors Poornima Gupta and Sinead Carew suggests Apple's primary intention in offering 4G LTE is to "tempt more U.S. customers to pay extra to watch high-quality video on the go." It also said that the addition of 4G could "go a long way toward banishing the sometimes shaky video quality of older devices."

While the report focused on video playback, it did not offer any indication that Apple plans to modify or expand its own offerings on iTunes. One recent separate report from last week indicated that Apple is "pushing ahead" with plans to release a streaming TV service, but that is not expected to become available until later this year.

Apple's interest in online video is also believed to be tied to the company's rumored plans to build a full-fledged television set. Numerous reports have indicated that Apple is at work on such a device, including one in January that said famed Apple designer Jonathan Ive has a 50-inch prototype set in his California design studio.

The quality of video on the go could be a greater factor with the next-generation iPad, as it is expected to feature a high-resolution Retina Display. A pair of recent rumors have even suggested that Apple will name its next tablet the "iPad HD," for high-definition.

The third-generation iPad is expected to have a screen resolution of 2,048-by-1,536 pixels, which would be a pixel density double that of the current iPad 2. It's also a resolution greater than a 1080p high-definition television set.

Beyond the iPad, video is also expected to play a part in this week's media briefing in the form of an updated Apple TV. Recent stock-outs of the current model, released in late 2010, strongly suggest that Apple plans to update the product with a new model this week.

Apple's media event will be held Wednesday, March 7 at 10 a.m. at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco, Calif. AppleInsider will have full, live coverage.

Video Shmideo...
I want 4g just so I can do basic tasks. In my Philadelphia suburb AT&T is so awful, and saturated... doing simple tasks are painstakingly slow. Actually, everyone is bailing to Android

I'm sincerely curious as to how people might use their iPad HD(3)'s LTE capability. The only thing that really would benefit would be the streaming video, but with the data prices and limits as it is, I wouldn't watch any movies on it when it's not on wifi. Does LTE economically make sense on iPad?

I'm so freaking sick of Verizon's ads, though. And AT&T's too, I guess.

"With these new 4G LTE tablets from Verizon"

"And with AT&T 4G LTE"

SHUT UP YOU IDIOTS. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO ACTUALLY PITCH A SERVICE. I want to line my fingertips up vertically along their faces and just rip the skin outward. It INFURIATES me the way those commercials are written.

I can't tell if it's the pretentiousness, the lack of actual information, the lack of POINT, or all of the above.

I'm pretty sure the current 7Mbps (I think) for the iPad 2 is already enough to stream HD video.

I'm hoping for 21Mbps HSPA+

The problem with looking at theoretical limits of a technology is that it involves devoting more spectrum than realistically possible to hit that limit. It is easier for 100 LTE devices to be using 15Mbps of data at the same tower than HSPA+ because it's more spectrally efficient.

However, I think the comment about HD video is rather silly, because the only reliable source for that content is iTunes, and it would only take two high quality 720p movies would blow through a 5GB cap which costs $50. At that kind of pricing, who would even bother?

I'm so freaking sick of Verizon's ads, though. And AT&T's too, I guess.

"With these new 4G LTE tablets from Verizon"

"And with AT&T 4G LTE"

SHUT UP YOU IDIOTS. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO ACTUALLY PITCH A SERVICE. I want to line my fingertips up vertically along their faces and just rip the skin outward. It INFURIATES me the way those commercials are written.

I can't tell if it's the pretentiousness, the lack of actual information, the lack of POINT, or all of the above.

The problem with looking at theoretical limits of a technology is that it involves devoting more spectrum than realistically possible to hit that limit. It is easier for 100 LTE devices to be using 15Mbps of data at the same tower than HSPA+ because it's more spectrally efficient.

However, I think the comment about HD video is rather silly, because the only reliable source for that content is iTunes, and it would only take two high quality 720p movies would blow through a 5GB cap which costs $50. At that kind of pricing, who would even bother?

And this totally realistic observation illustrates why the theatrical-movie model is going to be marginalized to the living room, and the quick-visual-fix model, like on YouTube, is where we're headed. Five minutes is the new half-hour or even hour. But this won't be obvious until the medium is compelling. The new screen might do it for little art movies, but I think it's going to take 3D to make it really obvious.

Portable video will become three times more compelling when it's in 3D.

There is the left-eye stream, the right-eye stream, and the fused 3D composite that happens inside your brain as a sort of perceptual detonation.

"Compelling" might not be the right word. Maybe "magnetic" or "gravitational" would be better. Or "irresistible."

But the new screen will be a good warm-up for the advent of deep video. Actually a necessary predecessor, because edge sharpness will fall off, but that will be compensated for by depth.

I can't tell if you are being serious here, but if you are, you're totally dreaming here.

3D TV's are already on the wane, the number of movies coming out in 3D similarly so. The industry has been pushing 3D TV sets and 3D movies for years now with almost no uptake at all. No one wants it, just as no one wanted it in the early 70's and no one wanted it in the late 50's. 3D is the ultimate boondoggle.

And this totally realistic observation illustrates why the theatrical-movie model is going to be marginalized to the living room, and the quick-visual-fix model, like on YouTube, is where we're headed. Five minutes is the new half-hour or even hour. But this won't be obvious until the medium is compelling. The new screen might do it for little art movies, but I think it's going to take 3D to make it really obvious.

My last post on this subject. It had to be said.

Whew! Thank god somebody said it! I know we were all looking around wondering to ourselves 'when will somebody say what we've all been thinking when we close our eyes at night?'

Video Shmideo...
I want 4g just so I can do basic tasks. In my Philadelphia suburb AT&T is so awful, and saturated... doing simple tasks are painstakingly slow. Actually, everyone is bailing to Android

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

How does it make any sense to move to a different operating system when the network is the problem?

If it sounds like a troll, and walks like a troll, it's probably an android fanboy.

The problem with looking at theoretical limits of a technology is that it involves devoting more spectrum than realistically possible to hit that limit. It is easier for 100 LTE devices to be using 15Mbps of data at the same tower than HSPA+ because it's more spectrally efficient.

However, I think the comment about HD video is rather silly, because the only reliable source for that content is iTunes, and it would only take two high quality 720p movies would blow through a 5GB cap which costs $50. At that kind of pricing, who would even bother?

I've stated in other threads that I suspect that Apple has a codec and hardware chip that will allow delivery of video streams with 10-20% of the bandwidth currently used. This would affect every transmission means -- cable, WiFi and cell radio..

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

I've stated in other threads that I suspect that Apple has a codec and hardware chip that will allow delivery of video streams with 10-20% of the bandwidth currently used. This would affect every transmission means -- cable, WiFi and cell radio..

10-20% of MPEG-2? That might be possible.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I can't tell if you are being serious here, but if you are, you're totally dreaming here.

3D TV's are already on the wane, the number of movies coming out in 3D similarly so. The industry has been pushing 3D TV sets and 3D movies for years now with almost no uptake at all. No one wants it, just as no one wanted it in the early 70's and no one wanted it in the late 50's. 3D is the ultimate boondoggle.

Two words: form factor. Changes everthing. When you hold a little depthy screen in your hands, you will want to crawl inside. Totally different from watching some framed theater on your wall.

You in particular might not get until you loosen up that right hemisphere of yours, but many others will. Actually, watching 3D will help, because it activates both hemispheres in a very specific way.

Edit: I really should take your point more seriously, because your bias toward reason/logic is so often useful in this forum. That is the valuable left brain working.

What's most interesting about 3D when it's used seriously—not for cheap thrills in terrible movies—is that new neuronal circuits are being stimulated by the enforced separation of the two eye-views, especially when moving picture is involved. That is why the depth effect and the textural solidity of things is so striking when the 3D is done well. Scorcese's Hugo provides many good examples. The best thing in that movie for me was the clothes, believe it or not. They went out of their way to recreate the feel of 1920s weaves and fabrics, and the 3D allows your mind to vicariously feel them. That's because both left and right visual channels are separately engaged, and the brain is fusing the two views like mad and feasting on the sensual stimulation, so long denied by flat, 2D media for all our lives. So 3D is a true neurological shift, and far from being a passing gimmicky fad. Like with stereo sound in the 50s, only far more powerful because it's light and vision.

Apple's desires and the carriers are diametrically opposed. Apple would love for people to use the iPad to constantly be connected and watch videos and other data uses. While the carriers want you to pay a lot for data and use as little as possible. Most people would choose the $30 for 3GB option with $10 per GB over that. That is great for the carriers and not so great for the consumer. Even with moderate use you could easily spend $100 a month for data.

The pieces won't be in place for a few years, but one possibility for Apple is to act as an MVNO for data. Dish has some spectrum they are sitting on and Clearwire also has a ton of spectrum. Apple have a number of possibilities for buying data as an LTE MVNO. They would have to be competitive with carrier data pricing, but I think Apple wouldn't mind low margins for data plans to sell more iPads. Similar to iTunes pricing with low margins to sell more hardware. Apple could also really shake things up by not requiring any contracts and simply selling data a la carte from the iTunes store. For example 1GB for $7 3GB for $20 5GB for $30 10GB for $50

I don't think Apple would ever want to become a full fledged carrier with the low margins and headaches that would go along with that. But I can see them partnering with some companies to build out a data only model for iPads, iPod touches, possibly Mac computers, and even people with iPhones who could choose to completely bypass the carrier completely. After all there are good alternatives to carrier text messaging and also VoIP calling already in place now. If you had a fast, steady, and reliable LTE data connection why would you need a traditional phone contract or carrier at all?

Typical carrier plans for the iPhone range between around $80 to $130 or more depending on options. And for $80 you really don't get too many voice, texts, or data except on Sprint. iMessage, google Voice, Whatsapp and several more options could easily replace traditional texts. Google Voice, or many VoIP apps like SessionTalk or even magicjack could replace phone calls. Imagine if Apple offered 10GB of LTE data with no expiration date for $50 or even $100. If you watched your usage and limited streaming videos, you could make 10GB last several months. No more monthly bills of $100 to use your iPhone. Now that really would be revolutionary and would turn the whole industry upside down.

Some very creative ideas here! What if Apple, as an MVNO, were to offer streamed content that included a charge/discount depending on the means of transmission -- a streamed movie to your AppleTV via cable cost $7, to your iPad via WiFi $8 -- via cell $10.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

I can't tell if it's the pretentiousness, the lack of actual information, the lack of POINT, or all of the above.

seems a little pot calling kettle black, I considered the 'if you don't have an iPhone, well you don't have an iPhone" some of the most obnoxious pretentious ads ever created, even though I agreed with the points.

I'm still just getting the 64GB wifi-only.
I've been an iPad user since day 1, and can count the times I missed wireless capabilities on one hand, if that.
If I need something urgently out of wifi range, I can always do it on my iPhone.
That said, I'm glad to have pioneers out there racking up more charges to AT&T/Verizon and working out the bugs.
My thanks!

I agree with the post above saying that the tablet and other mobile devices are becoming the video watching hardware of choice and that TV is losing ground.

I've got absolutely NO data to back that up, but my gut feeling trumps all data.

Mobile: the consumption of whatever I want, whenever I want it.
TV: what I want to watch with others I know or live with
Movie Theaters: where I go to watch big spectacles with people who are annoying to me.

That's not 4G. That's 3G. That's not going to solve any bandwidth problems.

That might be a matter of opinion however on the devices where it registers which type of connection it has such as Edge, 3G, 4G, 4G LTE, when connected with HSPA+ identifies itself as 4G and it actually is much faster than 3G in my experience.

The report by authors Poornima Gupta and Sinead Carew suggests Apple's primary intention in offering 4G LTE is to "tempt more U.S. customers to pay extra to watch high-quality video on the go." It also said that the addition of 4G could "go a long way toward banishing the sometimes shaky video quality of older devices." [ View article on AppleInsider ]

I doubt this is what Apple is thinking.
I suspect this is what AT&T and Verizon are telling these analysts.

There is an old expression: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
AT&T and Verizon have one thing to sell...BANDWIDTH. All they have is dumb pipes.
All they can think about is how can we get people to stuff those pipes...VIDEO!